I heard about that when it happened, but hadn’t realised it took nine years with a coma, paralysis, and seizures. It must’ve been horrifying for everyone involved, including the mates who dared him.
> Look at how differently humans drive vehicles, and realize they're doing the same with compute.
I’m not sure that comparison is evoking the image you intended. Hands down the best driver I know—the one I’m sure won’t get me car sick, won’t ever have me worrying for my safety, the most fuel efficient, the smoothest rider—is by no means the fastest but the most thoughtful and methodical.
I don’t care how fast you develop your software. Is it good? Is it carefully considered? Will it not bite me in the ass? Those are the things that matter.
> I can do projects in 3 days what would take 6 months.
The hyperbole on this keeps growing every time I see it. Soon we’ll be having people claiming they can do in 12 seconds what used to take them 17 years. What is never presented is proof. People (and programmers are no exception) are notoriously bad at estimating. We already did studies where people thought they were being faster with LLMs when they were in fact being slower.
As companies begin to rehire to fix the mess made by LLMs, it’s clear that just getting something out the door isn’t enough. It never was. Maintenance is an important part of any long-standing system.
It’s bizarre to me that so many people feel the need to keep parroting this corporate talking point. What do you care? If you think people who eschew LLMs for coding “are not going to make it” or “are going to get left behind”¹, then let them. More opportunities for you, right? Go do your own thing.
¹ As if “moving forward” or “progress” were always a positive. It’s not. Just look at how many regulations we have to forbid or curtail uses of stuff we found to be harmful.
Man, I bet Jia Tan is simultaneously kicking themselves and having a field day. All those years of wasted effort gaining trust and making good contributions to try to land a sophisticated backdoor into a tool via layers of indirection, and then not long after we have devs just going “I don’t need to read this code, or prioritise, or think about what makes sense, just prompt for fractals of kitchen sinks and ship it”.
Anthropic themselves have admitted you don’t need much to poison LLMs¹. I can’t wait for us to discover the backdoors that are being introduced. I hope it happens soon so people get to their senses. Bah, what am I saying, when (not if) that happens, the response will just be to throw more LLMs at it.
Agreed. I used to enjoy vim macros, but ever since switching to Helix I reach for its multiple cursors all the time and barely use its macros. But that doesn’t mean multiple cursors don’t have a learning curve, I still need to think of he method to place the cursors in the right places.
> Well you only talked with one single person and judge that the Zig community culture sucks?
In fairness, Loris Cro is “VP of Community at Zig Software Foundation” so if there’s someone to judge the community by, Loris has more weight than just about anyone (perhaps excluding Andrew Kelly).
Note I am not agreeing with your parent post, what I have seen from Loris and Andrew makes me interested in trying Zig.
You’re making it seem like fewer features is a negative, but that’s not always the case. Even for programming languages, I can think of how I semi-regularly see people lamenting that Swift got too complex, while praising Go for being a small language.
I wasn’t being pedantic, I was (as per my words), providing further context. Anyone who has watched the show knows these things, they are basic information from it. My post and the one I replied to are (obviously) for people who know close to nothing about it, and those people won’t know who “The Doctor” is, the point was to make it clear it’s the main character.
Also, not only is “The Doctor” not the character’s real name, they have been called “Doctor Who” multiple times, including in credits, so you pedantry isn’t even right.
> If the timer counted up, you'd constantly need to care about getting each one as fast as possible, or fret about one that's taking you minutes, etc.
The timer doesn’t have to be visible at all until the end.
> Everyone wants to fail less, sure.
It has nothing to do with not wanting to fail. Sometimes people just want to chill a bit or kill a few minutes with a simple word puzzle that engages your game without being stressful. This game doesn’t even let you repeat the challenges you took, so to play it you always have to be highly engaged. That’s fine for some games, but not every game needs to be like that, and this one doesn’t.
No one’s asking timer mode to go away, or even become the default, just to have the alternative option.
Right. I don’t mean every challenge and difficulty is purposeless and dumb, just that those don’t have to be the goal, and that sometimes an easy game is what you want.
Tangentially, I have noticed some of the most well-balanced difficult games I have ever played were the ones with very granular difficulty settings. Examples include CrossCode and Celeste. Crypt of the Necrodancer too, though the customisation there feels like it crosses into too granular. In each I changed the difficulty settings exactly once, for optional challenges, and it made the games way more enjoyable.
Not everyone plays games for purposeless dumb challenges and difficulty. Games are supposed to be fun. Sometimes you just want to chill and engage the brain at a leisurely pace.
A better alternative might be along the lines of “why developers ditch GitHub for Codeberg and self-hosting alternatives”. That way it doesn’t commit to a trend or exaggerate the situation in your mind, instead making it clear it’s a report on “those X who do Y do it for these reasons”.
What life is too short for is being screwed over by and having to deal with the consequences of some agreement you were too lazy to read. These aren’t half as inscrutable as you think; after you read a couple you get a feel for them and can breeze through, honing on the parts that are important to you. I don’t need to spend more than a couple of minutes on a TOS before understanding if it’s awful or reasonable, and it has stopped me from opening accounts on services with truly awful provisions.